Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

I think it's great the left thinks Bush is dumb. It means they make mistake after mistake in dealing with him, and he walks right over them and keeps on going while they rage in confusion, never quite figuring out the obvious.

 

If they are right and Bush is so stupid, as they keep maintaining, what does being beat, and beat again, and beat a third time, by El Dubya Stupido, what does that make them?

 

Oh, I forgot, all the selfish mean people are helping him. wink.gif

  • Replies 302
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

Goat got a snaf.gif!

 

He brings up an important point. Bush's job is to be Leader. That doesn't require brain surgery training, it requires leadership and communication skills. Ronald R was certainly no brainchild, and worked comparatively few hours, but beat his successor hands-down in leadership and communication skills.

Posted

well that last post sounds like a comic book kid spouting off about his favorite superhero. Even supporters of the cabinet know that he isn't making the calls at Penn Ave. I refuse to call him cunning, by any stretch.

Posted

Goat -

Don't let Iain bug you. I think he may be right as to foreign policy, at least, because Rumsfeld wrote the book on it many years ago -- before your hero GW even thought about politics. But that doesn't address the question of whether he is smart. I am beginning to think there is a method to his madness, and he may not be as stupid as he looks. But c'mon -- "nucular?" He reeks of stupidity. Did you hear Tony Blair when he was interviewed on NPR two months ago? The difference was stunning.

Posted

"Bush's problem is that his shortcomings are very 'graphic' which is the most important mode of conveying a message today."

 

That may be true, but regardless of that he connects with a lot of folks who can look beyond a episode of nervous sentence mangling every so often, and see someone they trust, even if his opponents do not.

 

In contrast, Gore didn't just slip up with words, he fabricated stories from whole cloth. My favorite was during one of the debates ( I think that's right) where he went on a name dropping tale about visiting a disaster area with some official or another, then it turned out he'd never done it, and I believe he'd never met that person either. That's not a slipup.

 

"And he never was challenged on substance anyway. "

 

Never is a pretty strong word, especially when I don't think it's true. He was challenged on his foreign policy experience, his states education and budgeting, the environment of Texas, his supposed lack of "gravitas", the liberal's new favorite 10 cent word for a week or two.

 

God I got tired of hearing that word, as if listening to Gore's monotone patiently explaining how everyone needs his help meant he had it.

 

Bush was critiqued up one side and down the other on his performance, ideas, family, policies for Texas, and all the rest, which is what one expects from a race for president. I think saying he was never challenged on substance is a dog that won't hunt.

 

Posted (edited)

MAttp:

 

Several years ago I heard two "Seattle" climbers interviewed in NPR. One came across well spoken, articulate and so on the other in comparison seemed dull. I saw the same two climbers on TV and the difference was even more dramatic. The funny thing is that without any doubt if I was hanging by a thread and could use one of my lifelines to ask one of those two for advice, I would have without a moments hesitation called the one who appeared to be the dull one.

 

Without regard to intellect I would assume that a politican like Blair would be a better speaker. Indeed the hard part about politicians is wading through their public masque.

Edited by Peter_Puget
Posted

hey matt, takes more than that to bug me!

 

I'm not going to claim Bush is a genius, because I don't think he is, few people are. But I don't think being the smartest man in the world is necessary to make good decisions. Picking good people to delegate to is every bit as important as any amount of brain power, because it shows good judgement.

 

Gore and his supporters figure he's pretty smart, and yet he wasn't smart enough to not tell whoppers that could be easily checked on. And that doesn't take a brain surgeon.

 

 

Posted (edited)

Bush was critiqued up one side and down the other...

 

What are you talking about, Goat? Perhaps during the election, but Mr. Bush has not been challenged by the press on anything since he has become president. They treat him with kid gloves. That was my point at the very beginning of this thread: the media is spewing Bush administration propoganda and the mainstream media of TV and newspapers are not presenting anything even remotely balanced.

 

I think DFA's thesis may have some merit - that these media may be more centrist than rightist, but I did present some examples that I think show how the press has portrayed the "facts" with a conservative slant and nobody has presented similar examples of how the press may have portrayed anyting with a liberal slant. How is it - what stories can you point to - that gun control or tax matters have been misrepresented on national TV or in the newspaper?

Edited by mattp
Posted

By the way, I do agree with the discussion of Gore v. Bush, though I would still rather have had Gore as president and he DID win the election. Part of my problem with the pathetic democrats is that they couldn't or didn't make any issue of the fact that Bush's team so blatantly defeated democracy.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...